20180582 Ver 2_Public Notice Comments_20190829 (13)

Strickland, Bev
From: mikebamford [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:42 AM
To: SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject: [External] "Cashiers Canoe Club"
• Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
EL,t-Wam(@gL.gov
My family owns property within Cashiers over which the Chattooga River flows. We are just downstream of the
proposed dredge and fill site that we refer to as the Cashiers Marsh. Each of my questions and concerns are provided in
an outline format in order to for the Canoe Club, ACOE and DENR to consider modifications to proposed project, or even
to reconsider leaving the marsh as is. The proposed project has a high probability of destroying the downstream trout
habitat that relies upon a clear cool stream with little silt; a silted Chattooga will harm my families property and our
productive use and enjoyment of our property. We would like to see modification in the proposal.
1) The fill areas near the mouth of the Chattooga, and along the east bank of the Chattooga are
troubling. Dredging the Cashiers Marsh onto the adjacent banks of the Chattooga River on the downstream side of the
project suggests a lack of confidence in the stability of this fill. Filling the North side of the marsh with the dredged
material, would result in a re -silted "lake" if the berm holding the fill area failed. A failure of the currently proposed
"filled area" would result in an enormous wash of silt down the Chattooga River. It should be moved elsewhere... like
Texas.
a) The NCRS division of the USDA classifies the soil in this area as "silty loam", "unstable", "easily erodible
without mitigation". When lubricated by water the soil is extremely unstable, which is why it located on the bottom of
Cashiers Marsh. The significant mitigation required to prevent this fill from entering and impacting the Chattooga Wild
and Scenic River is not apparent in the project proposal. How will the project prevent this fill area from washing down
the Chattooga?
b) The Chattooga has been included in the national Wild and Scenic River system. The USFS must protect
and enhances the Chattooga River's free-flowing condition and water (see Whitewater v USFS 959 F. Supp. 2d 839SC
2013). Therefore, not allowing sediment from the proposed dredge and fill activities would violate not only the Clean
Waters Act, but also the WSR Act. If the proposed berm or riprap for the proposed fill areas were to breached, how
and where will this silt be removed? Who will be financial responsible from removing the silt and restoring the
Chattooga's water quality if the proposed fill area erodes into the Chattooga.
C) What alternative sites were considered for the fill material away from steams, wetlands or other
sensitive areas? Other fill areas away from the project should be considered.
Redundant safety measures should be incorporated into the fill area design to prevent fill from entering into the
Chattooga. Multiple and redundant berms holding the fill area, covering rip -rap, increasing distance of fill areas from
the Chattooga headwaters, retention ponds for trapping silt will prevent the migration of silt downstream into the
Chattooga and the destruction of our property. Alternatively moving all dredge material from the marsh to the North
side of the "lake", rather than the downstream side — would incentivize the developers to build a robust system to retain
the fill from reentering the "lake" and turning it back into a marsh.
2) Frank Allen Road sits on the North side of the project. After heavy rains, this road floods into a pond which
creates a dangerous thoroughfare. On two sperate occasions I have helped tow strained motorists from this temporary
pond. The Cashiers marsh -to -lake project forebay appears to restrict water from draining off Frank Allen Road, making
this dangerous situation even worst after future rain events. How will this project prevent future flooding on this road
after blocking the water from draining away from the street? How can this be mitigated?
1

3) The idea that development near Cashiers has resulted in siltation of this "pond' over the last century is
appalling, especially to the owners under and around the water. However, the proposed development and dredging
upstream of our property is likely to move the siltation problem downstream onto our property. Basically, the dredging
of Cashiers Marsh to form a pond that will financially benefit Texas developers, will likely have destructive
consequences to our local environment and to our Families productive use and enjoyment of our property. This
foreseeable effect was not considered when evaluating this project. Our Family rents a 1.7 mile segment of the
Chattooga to the Whiteside Cove Fishing club, which would be devastated by the destruction of the fish habitat if the
Chattooga were to become filled with silt.
4) Cashiers Marsh provides a natural filter for water flowing across the marsh before entering the Chattooga. The
beneficial effects of this filtering will be lost if the water is allowed to bypass this natural filter. The ability of Cashiers
Marsh to filter pollutants was not considered in the analysis. What can be done to retain or replace this natural
filtration system currently working well?
5) Scope of ACOE jurisdiction: The ACOE has 404 jurisdiction under the CWA 33 CFR 328.3 (a) for "waters of the
United States" and for "navigable waters of the United States" under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The
scope of jurisdiction under §10 and §404 are not the same. The Chattooga River is a tributary of the Sarvanana, and
therefore not jurisdictional under §10 . Both the Marsh and creek are 404 jurisdictional under the CWA. The major
difference is the scope of ACOE authority under 404 is not absolute, nor does authority it usurp State law.
The entire Chattooga and the marsh is classified as ORW by the State, and although the ACOE can issue a "federal
Permit" under authority granted by the Commerce Clause, it does not follow that such a permit entitles the Canoe Club
to ignore North Carolina Laws preserving water quality. A 2019 Federal Registry publications indicates that States retain
control over water resources, which makes an ACOE permit only one of many approvals needed before dredging Cashier
Marsh. see 84 Fed.Reg 4169 02/14/2019. The proposed project does not meet North Carolina ORW waters
regulations, it needs to be revised to meet this regulation. Obtaining a federal ACOE permit, does not grant a Texas
developer authorization to ignore North Carolina law and destroy State resources.
6) What is the depth of the aquifers near or around Cashiers Marsh/Lake. Will dredging effect the only water
source for Cashiers? Might flowrates drop in nearby wells? How would such a catastrophe be mitigated? What is the
alternative water source if ground water is polluted by overdevelopment? by this development?
7) Although a 404 permit approval may be applicable to regulatory issues under the Clean Waters Act (involving
water quality flowing into navigable waters), it is not clear that the ACOE alone has the authority to approve this dredge
and fill project. North Carolina and other federal agencies have approval authority that was not considered; for
instance, the USFS must evaluate if this project might destroy the "values for which the Chattooga was designated"
under the WSR Act.
8) Riparian law requires that upstream riparian owners -while making reasonable use of water over their property -
do not unreasonably interfere with the downstream owners' reasonable use, and right to receive unimpaired water by
virtue of their downstream riparian rights. What assurances does the Canoe Club provide downstream riparian owners
that this project will not interfere with our reasonable use and expectations to receive unimpaired water, just one mile
downstream?
9) Cold -springs and shaded springs help to keep the water temperature low -enough to sustain trout in the
Chattooga River and Southern Escarpment of the Savannah basin. The South Carolina Chapter of Trout unlimited would
only experience out -of -State native trout fishing without the Chattooga River. What are the effects of expanding the un-
shaded surface area of the lake on the downstream water temperatures? What can be done to mitigate the effect of
warmer water spilling down the Chattooga and altering the river ecology?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal. I hope the final proposal considers effects on
downstream neighbors, the downstream wild and scenic river, wildlife habitat and water quality. Our species has a
PEI

history of making poor and hasty decisions without careful consideration of the environmental and human
consequences. Please do not let that happen here.
Sincerely,
Michael Bamford
[e-mail]